Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-25-2013, 06:28 PM
 
42 posts, read 276,222 times
Reputation: 34

Advertisements

I'm bringing this up because of what's going on in the Jody Arias trial.

The trial has reached a point in which things are pretty much deadlocked. The jury has decided that she is guilty but they cannot come to a decision on her sentencing. Because of this, the court is having to call another jury to decide her fate but there are problems. Where are they going to find jurors that haven't heard, seen or gossiped about this case?
News stations, especially HLN, has had heavy coverage. Whether you hate her or not, this is America...she needs a fair trial. Where are they going to find the people to give her a fair trial now? And its not just the juror issue. People involved in this case are being stalked and threatened.
If we did not have cameras in the court, we wouldn't have this issue. From OJ to Casey Anthony and Arias...there are too many cameras.

Do you think we have continue to air trial coverage the way that we do?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-25-2013, 06:47 PM
 
Location: Portlandia "burbs"
10,229 posts, read 16,307,727 times
Reputation: 26005
Personally, I don't see the need for cameras in the courtrooms at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2013, 07:23 PM
 
Location: 39 20' 59"N / 75 30' 53"W
16,077 posts, read 28,570,804 times
Reputation: 18191
I've followed televised trials, but my opinion against it is steadily increasing.

The courtroom isn't a place for tV cameras. Trials can be followed in ways other than daily viewing, its hurt at least 3 trials that come to mind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2013, 07:52 PM
 
Location: Dublin, CA
3,807 posts, read 4,278,129 times
Reputation: 3984
Absolutely. No cameras and no journalists should be allowed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2013, 08:11 PM
 
25,021 posts, read 27,949,504 times
Reputation: 11790
The only person that should be allowed to document ANY trial should be the court stenographer and nobody else. No cameras, no journalists, no audio devices.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2013, 12:34 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 37,070,009 times
Reputation: 15038
First of all, Federal Courts do not allow cameras of any sort in the Court room. So... who the "we" are who should stop having cameras in the court rooms of their state needs to be defined.

As a citizen and a former journalist, I would argue that with rare exception cameras in the court room have ZERO affect on the trial. Pointing to the Arias or O.J. Simpson trials is like arguing that because a two people got sick eating a banana while 154,000 did not (actual estimate of criminal trials per year), is more than a bit extreme.

As for journalist in general being banned from court rooms. All trials are public and of all the places where the workings of government must be exposed to full view it is in the nations court rooms. As a result the ability of journalist to report on how justice is administered is a fundamental responsibility of journalist and as such should not, cannot be abridged.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2013, 07:44 PM
 
6,205 posts, read 7,464,761 times
Reputation: 3563
Cameras in courtroom have Zero effect on the outcome? Then, why should cameras be there in first place? What's the point?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2013, 09:17 PM
 
3,846 posts, read 2,386,781 times
Reputation: 390
The jurists definitely need video review.

Demeanor and squirm trackings are important.

Otherwise, it is just a rehearsed word game.

Words are not usually the best form of communication.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2013, 09:24 PM
 
Location: Southern California
15,080 posts, read 20,484,127 times
Reputation: 10343
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLAkid View Post
...

Do you think we have continue to air trial coverage the way that we do?
We should stop watching televised prosecutions.

[or stop watching TV altogether]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2013, 09:32 PM
 
42 posts, read 276,222 times
Reputation: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
First of all, Federal Courts do not allow cameras of any sort in the Court room. So... who the "we" are who should stop having cameras in the court rooms of their state needs to be defined.

As a citizen and a former journalist, I would argue that with rare exception cameras in the court room have ZERO affect on the trial. Pointing to the Arias or O.J. Simpson trials is like arguing that because a two people got sick eating a banana while 154,000 did not (actual estimate of criminal trials per year), is more than a bit extreme.

As for journalist in general being banned from court rooms. All trials are public and of all the places where the workings of government must be exposed to full view it is in the nations court rooms. As a result the ability of journalist to report on how justice is administered is a fundamental responsibility of journalist and as such should not, cannot be abridged.

Honestly, I have no issue with journalist being in the courtroom. As long as they leave their cameramen outside, that is. In these high profile cases, its a matter of safety to me. I pointed out the stalking, the threats...people are scared for their lives in situations like this.

Anthony jurors lay low after names released - US news - Crime & courts | NBC News

Casey Anthony juror, 60, quits work and flees town in fear of her life | Mail Online

Nothing wrong with journalists doing their job but the cameras just add an unnecessary element. People should watch the news for information not entertainment. If they want crime drama, let them watch Law & Order, NCIS, The First 48, etc. There are a million of those things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:08 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top